Xzi:Load times virtually non-existent on a decent PC. So you can knock that negative off the list for the smart ones among us. :D

well excuuuse me if I'm dumb cuz I only own a kinda old laptop that cries if I run anything modern lol

TBH I can't really count a healthy financial situation as an indicator of ones personal intelligence, I mean look at America... richest country in the world but one of the biggest gatherings of absolute idiots I have ever seen.And since having an absolutely kickass gaming pc (which in gamer terms is simply "decent") is DIRECTLY tied to ones personal finance, unless that money was actually earned due to actually being some smart uni graduate in a kickass job earning tons of money to make a purchase of said PC actually viable I deem one who claims smartness for such a thing- unsmart indeed

Anyway regarding the review:

I am definitely interested now, I am glad to see that there has been more length added to the single player campaign, however if this transpires to be simple padding or artificial lengthening then I shall be upset, however I do not expect this from valve, my own personal disagreements with them aside, I know they are brilliant developers and a true industry leader, so I am more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I am looking forward to giving the co-op a spin as it looks like the most fun part of the game, as it appears that we will actually be given characters to play, rather than some random blank slate, which is incidentally my biggest pet peeve with valve games, why are their protagonists silent? it really makes no sense, I have no interest in half life because of this one thing, it ruins the immersion for me. Anyway, I have digressed- yeah the co op looks incredibly entertaining, not just because of the characters (atlas and p-body look hilarious) but also due to the interesting idea of dual portals as you just know that is going to lead to reaction checks where one player has to launch one portal at just the right time mid jump to allow the other player to get further etc, so yeah colour me interested.

I have seen the hats thing and, as always, it seems strange to me, I like the idea behind it, however it just seems a little bit off, given that the player only very rarely sees his avatar in game, and only one other person at a time will see it either, it makes sense in multiplayer games where you have true character customisation, such as in halo: Reach, where you create your own individual identity which makes you identifiable in game, which is important in not only a tactical sense, but also for the simple sake of personalisation, whereas in Tf2 your character customisation is so hamstringed that the primary change is his headwear, and even then you are simply working within the bounds of what you have been given by the game, with very little room to breathe, so personalisation is out, as is the aforementioned tactical identification as noting what the heavy on the enemy team with the most kills has on his head gives little benefit when every heavy looks the same apart from their hat and the hat that is being used was a level 3 achievement so even the low ranking players have it and there could be 3 other heavies on the same team with the same hat, so the system doesn't make any sense to me at all.But valve ARE geniuses so they probably know something I don't.

Nah, decent in this case is a $600 computer...that you bought four years ago. It's the Source engine. Not super taxing on your hardware. Which is why I find it amusing that load times are long on the 360. An investment of at least $500+ for most people in itself, lest I remind you. Consoles rarely fare any better in the cost department than PCs do given the price differences in games/peripherals.

It'd be stupid to buy ANY luxury item if you don't have the means to do so, including a console or gaming PC. That said, most everybody NEEDS a PC for one thing or another, whereas nobody truly needs a console. Throw an extra $200 into an existing PC, and boom, it's a PC capable of gaming and work/school needs.

Well I've been playing Portal II pretty much nonstop (just got off a few minutes ago) and I wouldn't say that Portal II deserves five stars (well actually maybe 4.5 stars, I'm not totally sure, I'm loving this game so much so far but there are things that I'm still not sure about that would take a bit of playing to figure out)

But you still make a good point though, Dragon Age 2 should have gotten a 3 or 3.5 (or at least a 4...)

Makes me wonder how the review system works

Then again I suppose reviewing can never be completely unopinionized/biased or perfect

Money dear boy.Valve doesn't strike me as the type of company to threaten/bribe a website for a good review.EA does.

Otherwise, the footage looks nice, might pick this one up. I'll have a look at a few more reviews first though. Not sure I can trust the Escapist anymore for honest reviews.

Or, in a less paranoid world, how about the two were reviewed by different people who have different opinions on things, and we accept that there is no grand unifying objective scale of game development and what one person loves another person might find tiresome and vice versa.

The Escapist has never sold a review score or review in its half-decade of life. We certainly don't plan to start now.

(And, for the record, I'm loving Portal 2. There's that subjectivity at work).

Yay! Go John Funk! It gets annoying that just because something is successful and you have a different opinion that it means they're evil and sold out. especially since he has no proof and is making baseless accusations!

OT: I don't really care if the puzzles are easier, I'm mostly getting it for Valve's awesome sense of humour. :P

I hate Russ Pitts' reviews, they're so dull and uninformative since all he seems to do is list the features of the game without even going in depth about the mechanics, the art direction, how it effects gameplay, etc.

Seriously, it's so dull and uninteresting it's nauseating.

Oh, and the best part is that he says, "Without spoiling too much...," then of course he shows countless pieces of gameplay of Wheatley looking sinister on a giant TV screen and what seems to be GLaDOS as a potato attached to the Portal Gun.

OT: If he'd reviewed it on PC, I bet the loading times wouldn't have been an issue.

They still would be.I'm playing through it now, and there are a huge number of loading screens. Usually one between each test chamber.On PC, chances are the loading times would be shorter, but no less numerous.

Speakercone:They seem to have borrowed the gel idea from a freeware game called TAG. worth a look if you haven't played it already.

Valve hired the developers of Tag to work on Portal 2.

The loading screens in Portal 2 are rather jarring at times. I can only guess why Valve didn't go with their usual method of freezing time for a few seconds while the next level loaded. That method is a lot less abrupt than what they've chosen to do here. There are several instances where you're moving along a seemingly open path and then Loading Screen, only to be transported back to the same path after the loading screen. It's a fairly poor design decision in a sea of inspiration.

I just finished it, yeah, it wasn't portal 1, and although it wasn't quite as original it improved on the original in every conceivable way, sure as fuck beat out Dragon Age II, which was given 5 stars.

Selvec:I have the strongest urge to kick the reviewer square in the ball sack.

Why? If there are spoilers in the video version don't tell me as I didn't watch it in case.

I haven't played it yet and can already find flaws in the arguments used: Who really cares if it's Triple A or Indie unless they are pretentious? If it's fun then that's all that matters, and loading times are shorter if the game is installed on the Xbox, not forgetting that unless you are reviewing a game exclusively for a platform (as opposed to that platform just being the one you happen to try, like suggested), then issues such as that should be ignored as they don't affect other platforms.

Mr. Omega:2: It was played on a console. They won't care if it was PS3 or 360, they will rage that it was on a console, period.

Sure there will be the "elitists" who will kick and scream it was reviewed on a console. For myself, I could care less if it was reviewed for PC or console but it is a bit asinine to review the "inferior" version that is lacking the extra features that come with steam.

I have an idea! Let's discard all the praise for Starcraft and re-review it based solely on the N64 version.

I just finished it, yeah, it wasn't portal 1, and although it wasn't quite as original it improved on the original in every conceivable way, sure as fuck beat out Dragon Age II, which was given 5 stars.

I'm confused. John Walker gave a completely different review on RPS, especially about the difficulty of the puzzles...

I'm going to have to say this review is relatively sub-par. I found that a lot of the challenges required a lot more thinking and figuring than the original Portal. However, they were not as difficult in execution (which is very likely due to me having beaten the original Portal about 6-7 times, 3 of them speed runs). I found myself very interested and involved with the story (which is incredibly expanded upon in this over the first one). The dialogue was very funny. And you actual feel quite immersed in the whole ordeal. You'll learn a whole lot more about Aperture, its past, Glados, her past and maybe even a little of Chell's if you catch it.

Also as a reference guide for the length of this game. I personally beat it in about 5-5 1/2 hours. Can't comment on the co-op length although I expect to play it soon. Overall, highly recommend this game. Improves over the first Portal in pretty much every conceivable way and it's just a ton of fun.

As much as I loved DAII - it really shouldn't of gotten a 5 star, maybe a 4. And portal 2 being non-challenging? From what I saw in gameplay trailers, that shit was even more challenging than anything in Portal 1! (I beat all the challenged maps within an hour or two on P1).

I just played through the Single Player. I would like to underline some of the statements made in this review with a big marker, but instead I will say this. Portal was nearly perfect in my eyes. Portal 2 is fresh and interesting, but it simply could not make lighting strike the same spot again.

My only suggestion to try and help people enjoy it better; do WHATEVER is necessary to not compare it to the original. It stands alright alone, but it can barely be seen in the shadow of its predecessor.